According to an official scoring by Fiscal Associates lead economist Gary Robbins released earlier this week, Newts Jobs and Economy Recovery Plan would create 6.6 million new jobs in two years and balance the budget within his first term. The Wall Street Journals Stephen Moore wrote about this news in his column, saying Newt arguably has the boldest tax plan.

“Mr. Gingrich has announced he will use dynamic, not static, scoring to demonstrate his plans potential to jumpstart growth. The former House speaker arguably has the boldest tax plan, which includes a 15% optional flat tax. He would also allow young workers to take a share of their payroll tax dollars and divert the funds into a personal IRA.

Mr. Gingrich showed that using this dynamic scoring  which takes into account the extra economic steroid effect of the plan  there would be six million new jobs in two years.

The new economic numbers, from former Reagan economists Peter Ferrara and Gary Robbins, also show that the Gingrich policies would balance the budget within the first term of his presidency.”

Former California Secretary of State Bill Jones has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president and agreed to serve as Newt 2012 California Co-Chairman:

In these challenging economic times, we need a bold leader like Newt Gingrich who has the right knowledge and experience to get the American people back to work. Newts proven track record of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt is exactly the type of leadership we need in the White House. Newt is the only candidate in the race who has achieved the scale of change we need, and Im proud to support his candidacy for president.

What I especially appreciate in all Newt’s speeches, besides his competence, powerful analysis of the real problems, and his solutions to solve them:

1) His data is always factually correct.
2) He makes his points without insulting the adversaries.
3) His huge talent of story-teller, which literally scotches the audience to his voice.
4) His great sense of humor.

Mr. Gingrich has announced he will use dynamic, not static, scoring to demonstrate his plans potential to jumpstart growth. The former House speaker arguably has the boldest tax plan, which includes a 15% optional flat tax. He would also allow young workers to take a share of their payroll tax dollars and divert the funds into a personal IRA.”

“Gingrich announced that, if elected, he would abolish the death tax. Meaning, he would offer legislation repealing the estate tax. The logic is that heavily taxing estates, eviscerates family wealth and forces more people into the public welfare system.

Take, for example, a family that has fifty-thousand dollars in savings and owns a small electrical business valued at 1.7 million dollars. If the business is owned in the fathers name, upon his death, the family will owe three-hundred and fifty thousand dollars in estate taxes. Only having fifty-thousand dollars in savings, the family will be forced to liquidate their business.

This removes their income and forces both the family and the employees into unemployment. The government is no longer receiving tax revenue from their business and paying more people unemployment checks. In short, everyone loses.”

If members of the Santorum team would take a step back and look at the scene, Newt’s team did that weeks ago, by running no ads and making no visits (except for the debate) in either of those states.

Newt’s too busy other places. He’ll make the ten percent he needs without campaigning. Both of those states are a wash. MI because it’s proportional and not worth the effort for so few delegates, and AZ because of the large Mormon population that only Romney money can buy.

24
posted on 02/26/2012 3:05:00 AM PST
by hoosiermama
(Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)

“Newt Gingrich is the only one who has it right. What we need to do is not prop up the old unsustainable Wall Street - Washington D.C. axis. Nor do we need massive government social programs to prop up workers. Neither is free market. Neither will work. What we need to do to fix the economy is to support new businesses and help small businesses expand.

Newt has the boldest proposal, per the Wall Street Journal, to jump start the economy. He would bring the capital gains rate down to 0%, and reduce taxes on everyone. As he points out, it is not “revenue neutral” in the short run. But in the long run, the increased revenues from his plan more than make up for any tax cuts, as they did in the 90’s.

With the capital gains rate reduced to 0, capital would pour into the marketplace. This would allow many new business to get started and small businesses to expand. As small business creates 70% of the jobs in America, unemployment would fall immediately. Main Street, not Wall Street, drives the economy. Economic activity would pick up as people got back to work, and our real wealth, GDP, would sky-rocket. Moreover, tax revenues would increase dramatically, allowing us to get rid of deficits and balance the budget.

Millions of new workers would pay into social security. Thousands of new businesses would pay taxes. And hundreds of millions of new customers would pay sales taxes. People would have jobs, which would give them money to spend, which would profit businesses and shareholders who put up the capital, while revenues would increase to the government. This vibrant economy would benefit everyone. It would spiral upward. It is a win win.

And then there are Newt’s plans for energy development which could give us untold riches just by being good stewards of the land and using our God-given resources. Look at North Dakota right now. Think Dubai. Or take his plan to write off all new equipment purchased in a year, which would instantly give us the best equipped workforce in the nation. The sky is the limit as to what we can accomplish if we quit regulating things and killing them, and start innovating and producing them.

So why do the other candidates lack the foresight, and vision to implement such bold plans? Because they are tied down to the old special interests. Santorum sold out to K Street a long time ago, and would be controlled by big labor. Romney would of course represent the wealthy Wall Street corporations that have contributed so much to his campaign already. Only Newt would represent we the people rather than the special interests and do what is best for the nation as a whole. This election will be won or lost on the economy, which is why Newt is the only candidate with the rock solid economic chops to beat Obama come November.”

Thank you! There is a huge [real or deliberately pushed] misconception and/or confusion about these primaries among electorate, including many of those on FreeRepublic - it's that you need to "win" a particulate state - like Michigan or Arizona - to get the delegates... and so, by extension, a lot of people are thinking of or are going to vote for Santorum in these states for no other reason than to "deny" Romney the delegates, because Santorum has been close to him in the polls.

That is nonsensical, because the vote for Gingrich would accomplish the same thing, but that's the perception. In fact, the only reason Santorum was able to rise from obscurity by "winning" nonbinding delegates in Minnesota and Missouri, is because he was a beneficiary of neither Gingrich nor Romney campaigning there. Outside of Midwest / labor union states, Santorum has hardly any appeal.

The plan is to rack up delegates in large proportional states and win large all-or-nothing states. To that extent, Santorum's "mini-surge" can be a detriment, but in some states it could also be of benefit since a large part of Santorum voters are much closer to big-government Romney than to small-government/Tea-Party Gingrich, so as long as that part keeps voting for Santorum, it's fine - they don't give delegates to Romney.

It's important to notice that while many polls show both Romney and Santorum fighting for the "win," they are still only getting around 30% of votes and, with Paul at usually stable 10% or single digits, this should leave about 30% to Gingrich... but there remains a large percentage of "undecided" who may be swayed by the polls and the notion that Santorum needs their "strategic vote" to "win" in the state to "deny" delegates to Romney.

Since "winning" the state like MI or AZ is irrelevant (except for bragging rights) and this is the wrong kind of "strategic vote" thinking - "natural" Gingrich voters (at least on FR) should be educated about this.

38
posted on 02/26/2012 3:58:10 PM PST
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

Speak for YOURSELF.. LOL.. I personally know many FORMER Newt supporters who have joined Rick’s team since it is obvious now that Newt can’t win. Many have told me that they supported Newt because he promised them a “job” if he gets elected... they were torn between voting for Rick Santorum who IS the BEST candidate that WILL win ... or take the chance on the guy who promised them a job.... names WILL be released soon.. not the right time for that right now.. but you can take THAT to the bank..

Dan

41
posted on 02/27/2012 5:23:48 AM PST
by Dan.israel.2011
(Who should be on President Rick Santorum's Dream Team?)

What jobs, you mean all those manufacturing jobs Rick is promising to hand-deliver through his unworkable tax policy that eliminates taxes for manufacturers and violates equal protection?

The fact that Rick’s boneheaded, tone-deaf statements are continuing, e.g. his insulting JFK’s speech, and not just being pulled from years-old speeches, shows that he is an incredible risk in the general election. No better way to alienate everybody except the hardcore Republicans than to show disrespect to JFK. He is certainly a revered and beloved figure among conservative and liberal Democrats alike in Pennsylvania.

Newt has the ability to counterbalance any and all attacks and criticisms with the fact that he is obviously an extremely intelligent and educated individual. Even the most liberal Democrats consistently acknowledge that. Santorum has no such advantage that helps him appeal to moderates. He’s a very risky, fairly weak person to nominate as compared to Newt. Newt at least is smart enough to learn from his mistakes and refurbish his campaign.

Unfortunately we seem to be locked in a war with the two extremes of the party trying to pick the nominee. The moderate establishment wants Romney so they can repeat the disasters of Dole and McCain. Meanwhile the religious right of the party wants Santorum and his holy roller rhetoric so they can repeat the disasters of Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell. I can’t wait for Santorum’s “I’m not a far-right extremist. I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you.” commercial.

Newt, on the other hand, offers the best of both worlds, the staunch conservatism without the radical, alienating rhetoric. Newt is someone who fully understands and embraces social, fiscal and national security conservatism yet can explain it all to the moderate voters in terms they can relate to and understand. He is BY FAR the most electable candidate for the general election.

You know what I mean.. names and specific “jobs” as in political appointments that were promised by Newt to draw some influencial folks who would otherwise be on Rick’s Team.... Wake up and smell the perverbial coffee.. get your head out of Newt’s perverbial behind and help Rick defeat Mittens my FRiend..

We the PEOPLE do not want a brokered convention do you get that? The GOP-e are trying to force us to wear Obama’s MITTens... we the PEOPLE say NO ! will you join me now?

45
posted on 02/27/2012 6:13:26 AM PST
by Dan.israel.2011
(Who should be on President Rick Santorum's Dream Team?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.